First of all, I want to get something out of the way - I take offence at you on mltiple occassions throwing the "your posts are to long" thing at me. First of all, you're under no obligation to read or to respond to everything I write. I write what I feel is a reasonable amount to make my point, to go into enough detail to have an argument, and to give enough information that people reading along can follow without having to do all the background research themselvesIt's your choice, and I'm not making you do anything. Get over it.
Secondly, a lot of your posts, including your replies to my earlier (and shorter) posts were quite long, and included large copy pastes from other websites. If you're going to resort to ad hominem and call the kettle black, make sure you're not the pot.
Now that's out of the way:
No, you are. Succession doesn't mean passing on a Bible, it means ordination with the laying on of hands.
Would you consider, after reading 2 Timothy, that succession includes doctrinal teaching? If so, then how can the apostolic writings not be included in that succession?
What you've quoted I think is inaccurate. To conclude that the Nicean Creed does not include Scripture is to ignore what should be rather self evident - most of the words are scriptural. The use of only begotten (monogenes), God being Maker of Heaven and Earth, of things seen and unseen, by whom all things were made, etc. The use of of homoousios, while not from the Bible, is a scriptural concept, and it scarcely would have been included if the fathers had not concluded it was taught in Scripture by concept if not by word. Kelly makes this exact point from Irenaeus.
I also doubt the assertion that the Arians rejected the Nicean understanding on the basis purely that it was a Greek philosophical term. The main reason they didn't like the term was theological, but they also used the argument that because the Gnostics, in particular Paul of Samosata, had used the term, it should be rejected. Of course, this is a pretty specious argument in the first place (what then should we make of the use of Logos in John?!)
But in any case, that doesn't sustain the real point you're making, that somehow Nicea is proof of a non sola scriptura position. Patently, it is (at least as the Reformers understood it, not as people either misunderstand or, in the case of many hyper-Proestants, misapply it)
But again, succession was useful proof of orthodoxy WHEN THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT.
So what about when there was?
2 Tim. 2:2 is relevant because it is proof text of apostolic succession, which is part of Tradition, whose successors form the Magisterium, whose primary source for doctrine is the Scriptures.
What is the other source for doctrine, then?
Agreed. But the gospel message goes with the office of those ordained to teach.
It does not say "The one who reads your writings hears Me..." In order for the Apostles and their successors to speak on Jesus' behalf requires infallibility.
for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift. Notice that Jesus does not say, "what is already bound in heaven you will bind on earth".
Peter was not always infallible. To say he was requires you to basically invoke a no true scotsman argument to say things like "when Peter led people astray by not eating with Gentiles, he wasn't teaching." At that point, it becomes pointless to talk about someone being infallible - instead, one can only speak about what is taught as being infallible (indeed, this is the position of Rome in regards to papal infallibility). My position is simply that the teaching of the apostles which is infallible is that which flows from the Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's telling to me, for instance, that Paul on at least one occasion is quick to separate what is his teaching, and what is the Lord's teaching.
Matt. 16:19 It would take miles of posts just to explain apostolic succession, and you want to throw in a red herring like indulgences?
You asked. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but I think it's a doctrine that gets to the heart of what sola scriptura means, and why Protestants and Catholics cannot agree. But whatevs.
Yes. I agree that Irenaeus was not a sola scripturist.
Does he expect tradition to have different content to the Scriptures? Did he expect there were things that the apostles did not teach that were important doctrinal points that the church needed to know? Yes or no?
You want to make me sit here at the computer for hours researching the unaccepted books in circulation of the 2nd century just to prove how many there were without helping me out with references. Let it suffice to say there were too many.
If you're not interested in proving points that you assert in support of your argument, the solution is simple - don't make those assertions. It's not my job to provide citations for YOUR arguments.
I will say, though, that while there were only a few that we know of that were extant at the time (Apocryphon of John, possibly Thomas), Irenaeus says there were many. However, he argues that they are self evidently forged, and that they only serve to "bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth." In other words, the forgeries post date the established Scriptures, and those likely to be duped are precisely those not already familiar with the Scriptures.
You= Magisterium
Manual=Scriptures
Tools= Tradition
In my scenario, if I was dead, what would the ongoing authority be?
In terms of tools, do the tools have authority of their own about how to repair the car, or do I select the tools based on what is needed to accurately follow the procedure in the manual?
Oh come on. Now you are just being stupid. Or blind. How many ECF's quotes does it take to prove otherwise?
This is exactly what my illustration is designed to show. The doctrinal authority flows from the apostles, yes? The father's assumed any tradition to be identical in content to the Scriptures, as the primary sources of the apostolic teaching, yes? The fathers, and other leaders, have authority to teach, yes, but that's a different thing to having authority to decide what the teaching is. Their witness to apostolic teaching is not tied to their authority to teach, (being able to teach is a separate issue to what the specifics of the content is) but by the fact that they were witnesses to the antiquity of the apostolic teaching.
The gift of infallibility is not a charism of individual Church Fathers.
I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking collectively.
Are you saying what John taught is subject to error?
No, I'm saying if you want to prove a doctrine was taught by John (for example), you have to put it in John's mouth. If Irenaeus says something was taught by John, and doesn't go to the Scriptures to demonstrate it, I would expect him to say that Polycarp taught the exact same teaching, and that he heard the same teaching from John.
Yes, but there is no evidence of Iraeneus being a sola scripturist, and no evidence of any Tradition (properly understood) that is contrary to scripture.
Read Kelly.
You still don't get it. When something is part of a whole, nothing is added. When you remove Scripture from its proper place, with Tradition and the Magisterium as a three fold entirety, you end up with theological chaos. History proves this to be true.
I don't see your point. If your argument is correct, and Tradition and the Magisterium has always been understood and always been taught since the Fathers, more of Christian history has been 'roman' rather than 'Protestant', or even 'Eastern Orthodox'. Doesn't that prove the opposite of what you're asserting?
Nobody goes by "purely oral tradition, especially Augustine.
Didn't say he did. By point is that oral tradition from the apostles is inherently more suspect than a written account, because logically it is much more susceptible to adjustment. Nothing more, nothing less.
The "likes of Augustine"? Why do you say that? Because he didn't pit the Bible against the Church? Because he taught the authority of Scripture without being a sola scripturist? Because he illustrates the three fold harmony and complementarity of Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium?
I just picked Augustine because he was late enough for the point I'm making. Frankly, I'm not that interested in arguing Augustine's theology, because it's not centrally relevant to the discussion.
That was one criteria used for proving inspiration. Any honest inquirer can see that the Bible came from the Catholic Church. What gets me is the psychotic anti-Catholics who claim the Church was evil, corrupt, killing the "real believers" by the millions, at the same time canonize the books of the Bible under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. /quote]
Again, at this point, Catholic=/= Roman. And obviously saying "the Bible came from the Catholic Church," is an incredibly loaded statement. Did the teaching of the Bible predate the church? Did the church write the Scriptures? Did the church have Scriptures (even NT ones) before a single ecumenical council?
of the sacred books is not based on generational proximity alone, and not on discernment of the Church that took 4 councils and over 3 centuries to discern and make binding on all believers??? 397 A.D. is more than a "generation or two". You are talking about enscripturation, I am talking about canonization. What was enscripturated was hotly debated. The book of Hebrews, for example, was not universally accepted as scripture until after the 4rth century.
But obviously the church had an established orthodoxy before any canonical set list, yes? Canonisation was always based fundamentally on the principle that they were recognising intrinsic authority, not ascribing extrinsic authority. That people disagreed on which texts should be canonical says nothing about the authority of the texts themselves.
Then it's up to you to find inconsistencies of what is taught about apostolic succession now and compare that with the 1st century Fathers....or the 2nd, or the 3rd, or the 8th (end of the patristic era)
Not sure you understood my point. I'm saying you can't use Clement as a proof text for how we should understand succession post the patristic era, because he lived in an era when apostles and first generation believers were still alive. Circumstances are very different between when there are living witnesses to when there are not.
Yea, but we still have "Bible-only" Christians screaming there is no New Testament Priesthood.
Ah, well, I would say there is no New Testament priesthood, or at least in the sense that Catholics like to argue there is. But that to me is a different matter to whether people can have authority in the church, and whether that authority should be given or taken. I'm always sceptical about people who try to take authority on themselves.
